From the January 2008 Idaho Observer:
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20080110.htm

Antibody titers and immunity: Are they related?

As more people begin to abstain from vaccination, the vaccinators must invent new ways to trick people into sticking with the needle. To stay ahead of the pricks, we must now understand the term and application of "titer counts."

By Vaccination Liberation

Many people are becoming aware of vaccine dangers and seeking alternatives to questionable and possibly life threatening injections in order to keep their jobs or stay in nursing or medical school. As a result, there is a growing interest in being able to take a test to measure titers in their bloodstream as a means of avoiding the unwanted but required injection(s). Since the demand for such testing is growing, we felt it was important for our readers to have a clear understanding of the rationale behind a titer test possibly replacing the "need" for a particular vaccine. It is also important to understand that a low titer count does not indicate susceptibility to a disease just as a high titer count has nothing to do with immunity to a particular disease.

Vaccines are licensed based on their ability to produce specific antibodies to a particular pathogen. Antibodies are protein molecules produced in the lymphatic system as a result of the body being exposed to a pathogen. The antibody theory proposes that antibodies specific to a pathogen will attack the invading foreign protein (pathogen), thereby neutralizing its ability to produce the disease in the body.

Titers are a measurement of the quantity of a particular antibody circulating in the bloodstream. The antibody theory holds that a high titer count is supposed to tell us the person is immune to the disease while a low titer count would indicate that the person is still susceptible to the disease. Titers are usually expressed in a ratio that represents how many times the blood can be diluted until no antibodies are found. For example, if someone’s blood is diluted a thousand times, the point at which no antibodies to the particular antigen are found, then the titer count would be expressed as 1:1000.

The most important factor in a fully-effective immune response is general good health characterized by a clean bloodstream coupled with a nutrient-rich diet. Immunity to pathogens is dependent upon a complex response of the body’s cells which may—or may not —include the production of antibodies. A titer test typically measures only one aspect of the immune system’s response. Considered essential for viral disease immunity are memory cells for specific viruses. There is no test for qualitative measuring of these memory cells. Memory cells are what prompt the immune system to create antibodies that are dispatched to an infection associated with the pathogen it "remembers." Memory cells don’t need reminders in the form of re-vaccination to keep producing antibodies (See Science, 1999; "Immune system’s memory does not need reminders").

What "medical science" considers an acceptable level of antibodies for determining "immunity" can be determined by taking an average titer level for individuals who have had the disease naturally. But it has been shown that individuals with high levels of particular antibodies can develop symptoms of the disease upon re-exposure to conditions that are the actual cause of the disease.

Furthermore, many individuals with no previous history of either the disease or vaccination against that disease do not display disease symptoms when exposed to the exact same virus associated with the disease. For example, less than 10 percent of those exposed to hepatitis B virus show any symptoms. However, unaffected individuals do develop antibodies proving that exposure has occurred. The following facts were discovered in the late 1940s in a laboratory in Great Britain and published in 1950. (A Medical Research Council Report, "A study of diphtheria in two areas of Great Britain", Special Report series 272, HMSO 1950.)

·

Individuals with high diphtheria titers were equally likely to develop symptoms as were individuals with low or zero titers. (No protection was observed due to specific antibodies.)

·

In addition, a few individuals who recovered from diphtheria but were incapable of creating antibodies none-the-less demonstrated immunity upon re-exposure.

It should be noted that, based on the antibody theory, the only time one should have high titer levels is when the body is actively combating an acute infectious disease. It is clear from the research of many doctors and health researchers that high levels of antibodies in the blood have nothing to do with immunity to the disease.

Dr. Tedd Koren, D.C. stated, "Whenever we read vaccine papers, the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines—Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis)— all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks." [Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3.]

According to Trevor Gunn, B.Sc., "Many measles vaccine efficacy studies relate to their ability to stimulate an antibody response, (sero-conversion or sero-response). An antibody response does not necessarily equate to immunity....the level of antibody needed for effective immunity is different in each individual....immunity can be demonstrated in individuals with a low or no detectable levels of antibody. Similarly in other individuals with higher levels of antibody there may be no immunity. We therefore need to stay clear on the issue: How do we know if the vaccine is effective for a particular individual when we do not know what level of antibody production equals immunity?"

Dr. John March, a developer of animal vaccines, wrote, "Particularly for viral diseases, the ‘cellular’immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."

Dr. Glenn Dettman stated the following in an interview with Jay Patrick: "Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works." ["The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57]

Raymond Obomsawin, PHD wrote the following in his book, Universal Immunization: Medical Miracle or Masterful Mirage?

"[W]e find that upon investigating unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among ‘immunized’ persons, mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question whether their understanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact valid. For example, a team of scientists writing in the New England Journal of Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunity to disease is a broader bio-ecological question than the factors of artificial immunization or serology. They summarily concluded: ‘It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliable on the basis of history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of prior serologic determination.’

"Despite these significant shifts in scientific thinking, there has unfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertaking systematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird human immunity to disease, and in turn building a system of prevention that is squarely based upon such findings. It seems ironic that ....[we] must still raise the following basic questions: Why doesn’t medical research focus on what factors in our environment and in our lives weaken the immune system? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or does it threaten too many vested interests?"

It is clear that immunity does not come from antibodies or even ‘memory cells’, although memory cells may play a small part in the much larger processes of protecting health. If a person is healthy, first time natural exposure to a virus does not necessarily result in disease. In fact, the majority of first time exposures result in no symptoms but do result in ‘antibodies’ which ‘prove the exposure’ but also prove that immunity was present before the exposure. Total body health is the only true immunity. The concept that immunity comes from ‘memory cells’ is none-the-less valuable in that it points out that booster shots are totally unnecessary. Knowing that total health equals immunity is a basic key to understanding that vaccinations are unnecessary and ineffective.

ANTIBODIES DON'T PROTECT

Vaccine. 2001 Oct 15;20 Suppl 1:S38-41.

Vaccines developed traditionally following empirical approaches have often limited problems of immunogenicity, probably due to the low level of purity of the active component(s) they contain. The application of new technologies to vaccine development is leading to the production of purer (e.g. recombinant) antigens which, however, tend to have a poorer immunogenicity as compared to vaccines of the previous generation. The search for new vaccine adjuvants involves issues related to their potential limits. Since the introduction of aluminium salts as vaccine adjuvants more than 70 years ago, only one adjuvant has been licensed for human use. The development of some of these new vaccine adjuvants has been hampered by their inacceptable reactogenicity. In addition, some adjuvants work strongly with some antigens but not with others, thus, limiting their potentially widespread use. The need to deliver vaccines via alternative routes of administration (e.g. the mucosal routes) in order to enhance their efficacy and compliance has set new requirements in basic and applied research to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Cholera toxin (CT) and labile enterotoxin (LT) mutants given along with intranasal or oral vaccines are strong candidates as mucosal adjuvants. Their potential reactogenicity is still matter of discussions, although available data support the notion that the effects due to their binding to the cells and those due to the enzymatic activity can be kept separated. Finally, adjuvanticity is more often evaluated in terms of antigen-specific antibody titers induced after parenteral immunization. It is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with protection. In addition, very little is known on parameters of cell-mediated immunity which could be considered as surrogates of protection. Tailoring of new adjuvants for the development of vaccines with improved immunogenicity/efficacy and reduced reactogenicity will represent one of the major challenges of the ongoing vaccine-oriented research. PMID: 11587808

University of Chicago researchers found that Memory T cells are “distressingly slow learners”,
requiring “several generations” of intensive stimulation to make a lasting impression on T cells “No
vaccine trial to date has been able to produce significant numbers of memory T lymphocytes...”

The Pasteur Institute found that “98% of the immune responses triggered at the early stages of
infection are non specific. These non specific responses had been observed following different
infections by viruses, bacteria, parasites and fungi.” This means that natural immune system affords
98% of the early response to an infectious disease agent, while the adaptive or memory-based
protective response that vaccination seeks to stimulate represents only 2% of early response.

The Center for Vaccine Research in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania confirms that “Vaccine induced
enhancement of infection and disease has been reported for a number of viral pathogens.” The
production of antiviral antibodies can fail to inactivate infectivity and actually “enhance” the entry
of certain viruses (including Coxsackie virus; Respiratory Syncytial virus; Rabies virus; Influenza
A virus; Epstein -Barr virus and Herpes Simplex virus) into target cells and increase infectivity and
worsen disease symptoms.

Children with agammaglobulinaemia have no capacity to produce antibodies after contracting
zymotic diseases, but still recover from measles with long-lasting immunity.

Antibodies Are Not Required for Immunity Against Some Viruses
Mar. 1, 2012 — A new study turns the well established theory that antibodies are required for antiviral immunity upside down and reveals that an unexpected partnership between the specific and non-specific divisions of the immune system ...http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143426.htm